RE: Ichnotaxa (was RE: dino tracks near Syracuse?)

["Emma C. Rainforth" <emmar@ldeo.columbia.edu>]

> <<Personally I think the tradition of retaining a Linnean-style
> ichnotaxonomy
> was foolish; trace fossils are biogenic sedimentary structures, and not
> slices or branches of the tree of life.  Certainly they deserve to be named
> (just as other sedimentary structures are).>>
>
> This is very true.  I think Seilacher (spelling?) tried to remedy this
> situation somewhat with invertebrate traces by classifying them by behavior
> instead of phylogenetic position, although he still retained the Linnean
> binomial for each taxa.  Has anyone tried to do this with vertebrate traces?
> I realize one would have to subdivide the "locomotion" traces into something
> useful, but it might help?

So you name them based entirely on an interpretation. That's about as 
bad as the name being translated as "track of XXX" when subsequent 
research demonstrates that is about the least likely candidate 
trackmaker.

If you're going to name ANYTHING you want to do so based on your 
OBSERVATIONS rather than your INTERPRETATIONS.

Just remember, invert and vert traces are very different 
conceptually. Inverts are incredibly diverse and have *converged* on 
particular types of actions and body plans. So individuals of 
different PHYLA can produce identical-looking traces. Not so with 
verts!

And in turn traces are diff. conceptually to body fossils BECAUSE 
they are sed structures. It just so happens that for the last 150 
years we've been using 'linnaean'-style taxonomy.
--

Emma C. Rainforth
Geosciences Rm. 206E
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
61 Rt. 9W
Palisades
NY 10964-8000
tel. (845) 365-8621
fax (801) 838-4126
emmar@ldeo.columbia.edu
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~emmar/research/indexr.html